2. What do you think is the key
purpose of the paper?

3. What are the key research
questions the paper addresses?

4. What is the background to the
paper – does it add to previous
sources and studies discussed in
the paper?

36 CRITICAL THINKING TOOLKIT
5. What type of study is it?
e.g. qualitative or quantitative
academic, practitioner based or a
literature review?

6. What are the key themes
underlying the discussion?
6a. How do you interpret these
themes/discussions?
6b. What are the inferences you
can draw?

7. What is the author’s key
argument?

CRITICAL THINKING TOOLKIT 37

7a. Do you think the paper
sufficiently answers the research
question(s)?

7b. Do you agree with what the
author is saying? Why?

7c. If not, why not? Back up your
point of view with evidence.

8a. Are there any conflicting
views mentioned in the paper?

8b. Are you aware of any other
conflicting views ie. Are there
other research studies which
offer a different prespective /
opinion?

9. Has your view changed as your
reading of the paper progressed?
If so how?

38 CRITICAL THINKING TOOLKIT
EXAMPLE WORKSHEET

1.Title of paper Guilt Regulation: The Relative Effects of Altruistic Versus

Egoistic Appeals for Charity Advertising

Author (s) Chingching Chang
Journal Journal of Advertising
Volume 43 (3)
Year 2014
Pages 211-227
2. What do you think is the key
purpose of the paper?

To discover whether people donate to charity for altruistic
reasons or to assuage their feelings of guilt.

3. What are the key research
questions the paper addresses?

Is the main reason for charitable donation to make the receiver
or the donor happier?

What are the key triggers for charitable donation?

How do different types of ‘guilt trigger’ or persuasion correlate
with the amount given?

4. What is the background to the
paper – does it add to previous
sources and studies discussed in
the paper?

The reduction in charitable giving since the ‘dire financial
situation’ worldwide of 2008.
It builds on prior research including:
the argument that there is no such thing as true altruism
(Cialdini et al.1987)
the ‘guilt appraisal’ model (Tracy and Robins, 2007)
and ‘affect regulation’ literature, including affect forecasting
(Lowenstein, 2007)

CRITICAL THINKING TOOLKIT 39

5. What type of study is it?
e.g. qualitative or quantitative
academic, practitioner based or a
literature review?

Qualitative

6. What are the key themes
underlying the discussion?

6a. How do you interpret these
themes/discussions?

6b. What are the inferences you
can draw?

Motivation for charitable donations
Effective fundraising
Guilt affect forecasting
That focussing on the potential donor’s wish to assuage their
feelings of guilt and thereby feel happier, is a more effective
way of fundraising than making them see the end result (the
recipient’s increased happiness) of their donation.
That charities should consider their marketing/fundraising
strategies and target the emotions of the giver rather than
those of the recipient.
That the article supports Cialdini’s argument about
altruism not really existing.
That although guilt is seen as a negative emotion, it can be
used for a positive purpose.
That the findings are universal as the writer points out his
participants were college students but makes no reference to
their being Taiwanese, so must see this as irrelevant.

7. What is the author’s key
argument?

That ‘egoistic ad appeals, as opposed to altruistic ad appeals’,
facilitate the process of charitable donation and the ‘findings in
turn have implications for practitioners’.

40 CRITICAL THINKING TOOLKIT
7. What is the author’s key
argument?

7a. Do you think the paper
sufficiently answers the research
question(s)?

7b. Do you agree with what the
author is saying? Why?

7c. If not, why not? Back up your
point of view with evidence.

Yes, it appears to have been tested thoroughly. However the
fact that the average age of the participants was around 22
means they may not give a full picture.

Yes, because ‘compassion fatigue’ is a known syndrome, so
it makes sense that people will donate more for reasons other
than straightforward altruisim/compassion, i.e. for ‘selfish’
purposes.

8a. Are there any conflicting
views mentioned in the paper?
8b. Are you aware of any other
conflicting views ie. Are there
other research studies which
offer a different prespective /
opinion?

Not conflicting, but qualifying e.g.:
The relative effect of altruistic appeals may differ depending
on: the individual (Brunel and Nelson, 2000), cultural (Nelson
et al, 2006) and situational (Fisher and Ackerman, 1998; White
and Peloza, 2009)
Stronger guilt appeals can backfire (Coulter and Pinto, 1995)
8b No

9. Has your view changed as your
reading of the paper progressed?
If so how?

The author presents convincing research and arguments.
The examples in the translated ads in the Appendix however,
are very sentimental and obvious. So my final view is that
elsewhere the altruistic approach would be have to be
employed much more subtly or it might not be effective.